Assault HQ's (no new games for me until addressed)

[Zemke]

My point is the British 16 Air Assault Brigade does not get any better by designation of it's HQ as Assault. The men are not going to, over the course of two weeks become better trained to the point their Combat Power is four times what it would normally be. Then on the reverse of that, expend that "eliteness" in two more weeks of fighting and be back to normal. That makes no sense. I can see an increase from pre planning, rehearsals and so on, but that is already accounted for in the game through the Deliberate Attack. I could even buy a modest increase in Combat Power through CCP, but not the huge swings.

[Zemke]

Anyway, I will get off this subject, as I know I am pissing in the wind.

[AlbertN]

This is not about 'Brigades' or 'Elite' forces though - these are different 'topics'.

And the 'Concept' of what an Assault Army is is abstract, and a gameplay mechanic.

We can go all around that 'Yes but CCP is redundant because to be prepared means to not be fatigued thus fresh to attack' and "Yes but CCP means we got extra supplies" when there is a supply parameter, that can go over 100 IF CCP is 100.

It's a rather entangled type of discussion - what is of interest is the checksum of the whole ordeal, how it translates into GAMEPLAY. Which is what matters here - at least I so believe.

The concept of CCP suggests 'additional resting ontop of Fatigue 0 or low; extra preparations for battles ahead; etc'. Supposedly almost everything is already accounted for in other statistics. So CCP ultimately is an additional layer that is a generic performance booster.

It's built in the game - what can be altered are other details; and the interactions of Assault HQ (That offer doubled CCP, among other benefits).
What can be put there is how much the CCPs affect the CV as other form of solution.

A 100 CCP German units adds 100%, a 100 CCP Soviet units can add 25%. Examples. Values can fluctuate over time. Etc.
Present issue is '41 already (I alwayts reiterate I feel late war Germans are too weak but that's based on VtB Campaign in SP).

But I think the most will be at a loss if they try to translate the abtract concept of CCP into something realistic that is not already there into another statistic.

[IanW]

The designers are stuck between a couple of rocks.

On one hand, if they reflect the Soviet armies as they were, then players need to do a bunch of micro-management about how much of the artillery, trucks and tanks are sent to this army or that army.

On the other hand, if they do that, then people who believe the German army can do *anything* and can't under any circumstances be defeated by the Red Army get very very very whiny as the Red Army gets effective. Often, they copy Manstien by lying long, and at length.

So. An actual 'Shock Army' should get morale and so on bonuses from having 'enough' artillery, tanks and so on (which also prevents ahistorical bullshit, like withdrawing artillery from 1941 Soviet armies), rather than *press butan, is Shock*.

But it didn't get implemented that way, which is a pity, as 'morale' going up as support units were given to Armies/Corps is a pretty clean mechanic.

[vinnysix]

Zemke - good points in reference to game - i agree you cannot switch this on and off. I think you can only relate in terms of Command as an operational planner putting a specific formation on Point for assault and spearhead... thats what armd and mot units are for and as you mention already accounted for with the deliberate attack mode.

[xhoel]

I think some changes to the current system would go a long way in fixing the issues and imbalances that currently exist. Here are my thoughts:

-Allow Soviets to have 1 Assault HQ in December 1941, increasing gradually throught the years and peaking at 5 in 1945.
-Reduce German Assault HQ numbers to 5 instead of 6. Should decrease by 1 until it reaches 1 in 1945.
-Reduce the CP expansion that Assault HQs give but do not remove it completely.
-Slash Soviet AP gain from events. They currently gain 1.500 APs just from events. This gives the Soviet players an abundance to use their APs for whatever they want, when the system should be incentivizing saving APs to rebuild the Red Army. M60s proposal of only keeping the first two dumps of 200 APs while removing the rest sounds like a good proposal to me. The events should be kept so the players know when new units become buildable.
-Change the way leader changes work. WitE 1 dealt really well when it came to Generals that had not reached proper rank yet, by making them more expensive and subjecting them to a roll that could lower their rating. The current version basically allows you to assign the best leaders you have very quick and leads to games where both players have fantastic leaders in command.
-Change how early Guard status is assigned to Soviet Tank Brigades so that we do not see a large number of Guard Tank Corps being formed ahead of historical schedule.

[Firewire9452]

I’d urge caution in making multiple changes to assault fronts too soon.

Assault fronts give a lot of benefits: due to the Command Capacity increase, they put a larger percentage of the Soviet force under good commanders and allow you to put that larger percentage under good commanders at an accelerated rate (ie spending AP to put Tolbhukin on 20th allows 14 divisions to be moved under a good commander quickly vs 10 in a non-assault army) (together with there being no AP cost for moving divisions between armies). This also allows the limited number of good artillery units to have extended coverage. One side effect of this is that your also fighting with most of your good units in good HQs with high TOE because a Soviet player can usually put armies on supply priority 4 on turn 1 and flood support elements into those HQs when they have a reserve of manpower. The second issue is they increase CPP gain and, due to the command capacity increase, increase the number of units covered by the CPP increase. This improves counterattack potential and artillery commitment potential on the defense and, iirc, also has effects on fatigue/supply systems (I have to reread those sections of the manual).

So there are a lot of benefits and they often have synergies between the benefits. In that sort of environment, any nerfs or changes should be incremental to avoid overshooting. My suspicion is that the 41 issues are much more related to the scaler problem (the sheer number of units that can be put under good commanders with high TOE HQs and 6 solid artillery support units) and that the 42 problems have more to do with Soviets having too much offensive combat potential (ie not how quickly they regain their CPP in an assault HQ, but their maximum CPP being 100 and being able to double offensive CV). I’d think about reducing or eliminating the command capacity increase in 41 and maybe ramping it up each year) and perhaps starting Soviets with a lower CPP maximum that ramps up over time or possibly reducing NM for Soviets by 5 in 41/42. Similarly, I might increase the German CPP max for their panzer/motorized divisions to 125 to give them better sustain potential, but cap the benefit at 100 CPP. So a division with 125 CPP would have the same combat power and supply situation as a division with 100 CPP, but it would take longer for the division to deplete its CPP. Similarly, I think that the lose half your CPP should probably be replaced with linear losses rather than percentage losses, ie a hasty attack costs x CPP instead of x % CPP.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

I have determined that I "will not" be picking up any more games until the Assault HQ's have been addressed. (both sides) As Loki has said in the first post of this thread and after all my current games in 1941 Assault HQ's is a culprit to the current woes in the game.

At least it isn't as bad as the motorization debacle

[AlbertN]

I still rest in my case that it needs more than just the Assault HQs, way more - to be enjoyable.
I reached your same conclusion some time ago but had already started 2 new games by then. Something I am kind of repenting as I am getting frustrated by the game instead than enjoying it. Which, concept wise, is not good for a game.

[GloriousRuse]

They represent the institutional capability of the entire military enterprise to conduct focused planning, resourcing, administrative support, top cover, general staff synchronization, ability demand and receive mental space in the right senior leaders at the right time, and generally relative to the opponent conduct high tempo offensive operations. There is no 1:1 historical formation counterpart, because it is both a measure of relative offensive capability between two sides and the intellectual/psychological/interpersonal links and processes that often drive ability at a level where you've long since lost the ability to pull many direct levers. But that's not relevant/

What is, is what is actually letting counterattacks be prosecuted no just often, but near everywhere, and with minimal risk. Sure, AHQs build CPP faster. But you can knock panzers around with 70 CPP in much the same manner as 100 CPP unless you have a paucity of local forces. What lets you get in an out of the game is mobility. You can counter attack anywhere you've built up because it is entirely plausible to move forces from across a 300 mile radius to all arrive at once, strike, and then withdraw. You can do that because soviet admin movement is just as powerful as German, and they retain very impressive agility on their own ground, even without a single temp motorization. That you can attack or enter enemy territory and still admin move afterwards allows for operational scale counterattacks to converge weekly and then mostly withdraw. A very good German player will smash the lines flat and also then catch the tire attackers fifty miles back and there will be great slaughter, but only if they can break the remaining defense to begin with - and how many of us are that good?

I think two rule changes that would matter much more than AHQs would be this:

1. After you enter enemy territory or attack, those units either lose or reduce admin move privileges.

2. Admin movement bonuses are determined by ratings of leaders two HQs up...which will also give us a reason to put good leader in higher HQs.

[Skritshell]

As has been hinted at already, I believe the largest problem is not the assault HQ’s but the way CPP works. CPP as an instrument benefits the defender, their units will always be in friendly terrain and can often remain static for multiple turns creating large gains. Conversely an attacker will be constantly burning their CPP creating holes, and then advancing and burning what little is left. This has, I believe, the intended effect of burning out an offensive in 2-4 turns. As a system, this benefits the soviets more, as on the defence they will have a greater number of units behind the front gaining a large amount of CPP waiting to counter attack, while on the offence they have the ability to rotate entire army’s in and out of combat. The Germans do not have this ability, at best a German player can have 1/10ths of their forces off the front at a time. This is almost the reverse of the strength of the Wehrmacht in the early years of the war, the ability to create ad hoc units(kampfgruppen), coupled with their excellent lower ranking officers, allowed them to rapidly respond to changing situations and retain the initiative.

What I believe CPP intends to represent is this initiative, the ability to rapidly reform units after combat and maintain cohesion. It should not be supplies, as there is already an adequate system in place to represent this. This is in effect the larger problem we are seeing. If one reads multiple AAR’s on this forum it is quite clear that Barbarossa effectively ends between turn 10 and 13, not mud. At this point the Germans are out of CPP, and no longer have the time to wait for it to recover. On the other end the Soviets will have fallen back, reformed their units and have the capacity to counter attack into whatever weak German formations attempt a pocket. This denies the German player a Vyazma-Bryansk like pocket and pushes the Soviets in to an excellent position to conduct a winter offensive and farm all those lovely Guard tank brigades.

In order to correct this, and the larger problem of assault armies in general I would suggest these following points:

1. Remove all additional CPP gain from assault armies, it is a poor system that, as has been touched on by others, does not adequately represent what constitutes a formations ability to attack and sustain an advance.
2. Tie CPP gain to 3 things. The fatigue of a unit, the experience of a unit and the skill of their commanders. This will more properly represent what factors went into a unit's ability to sustain a proper offensive.
3. Remove all the preexisting rules on CPP gain, especially the rules about being adjacent to enemy terrain or in recently occupied terrain.
4. Remove assault armies, they are a poor system, in their place institute a proper system that has a correlation between a commander's skill level and their ability to effectively command more troops. This will have the added benefit of forcing players to move the better generals to higher command positions, as players will want to properly balance their command structures.
5. The problem of foresight has not been addressed. Soviet players in 41 will always retreat into the steppe regardless of how many bonus VP’s are assigned to certain cities. To this I do not believe there is any good way to force a soviet player to fight forward. Giving them more offensive power in 41(assault HQ’s) only increases the damage they can do when they choose to fight.

I make no claim that these suggestions would not create more problems, or would they solve any of the other issues the game is currently experiencing. But I do believe it would be a step in creating a much more dynamic game and would remove one of the most predictable aspects from the game, CPP gain.

Chow.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: erikbengtsson

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: erikbengtsson

My idea of Soviet assault HQ:

Only one, from turn 24 until end of February of 42. None from Mars until October of 42, (possibly even end of October). Then two from October/November of 42. The third and final given in June of 43 (this can of course be house ruled in MP games until its possible patching).

Another thing also comes to mind.

The AP bonuses given to the Soviets in December of 41 should be for AI only. They are allegedly given to create ski battalions, rifle and cavalry corps. But the the Ski Bns are free, and the two rifle and eight cav corps that can be created in December only costs 120 AP (while 200 AP are given). Instead, make the two + eight December rifle and cav corps free.

While I haven't played that far yet, I am also pretty sure that the other AP bonus events should also be AI only. A human player should not be given these.

And meanwhile you'll leave the Germans with 6.... Interesting.....

Just what are you basing that idea on?

The current player versus player balance.

So you'll leave the Germans with 6. Yeah, balance.....

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Beethoven1

It may well be the case that assault HQs, at least for Soviets in 1941, are too good.

However, I hope that one thing that doesn't get lost in this conversation is that historically, the Soviets counterattacked in 1941. Not just a little bit, but a LOT. So if there is supposed to be a historical sort of experience in WITE2, then Soviets should counterattack in WITE2.

Historically, the Germans only cut off Leningrad. And lost. You can't expect one side to act "historically" without expecting the same from the other side.

It's not a documentary, or a history book. It's a game, not a slave to history. You get to make your own, original, mistakes and successes. That's what I hope doesn't get lost in the conversation.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: vinnysix

In relation to historical context - Russia probably comes closest to the concept of Assualt Formations/Armies/Divisions....

During the Second World War, the Red Army of the Soviet Union deployed five shock armies (Russian: ударные армии – singular: Russian: ударная армия) between 1941 and 1945. Many of the units, which spearheaded the Soviet offensives on the Eastern Front from the Battle of Stalingrad (1942–1943) to the Battle of Berlin (1945), were shock armies. Shock armies had high proportions of infantry, engineers, and field artillery, but with less emphasis on operational mobility and sustainability. Soviet shock armies were characterized by a higher allocation of army-level artillery units to break German defense positions by weight of fire, and often had heavy tank regiments or heavy self-propelled gun regiments to add additional direct fire-support. Once a shock army had made a breach in an enemy tactical position, more mobile units such as tank and mechanized corps would insert themselves through the shock army's positions with the mission of penetrating deep into the enemy rear area. By the end of the war, though, Soviet guards armies typically enjoyed superior artillery support to that of the shock armies.

Shock armies were instrumental in the execution of deep operation (also known as Soviet deep battle – Russian: Глубокая операция, glubokaya operatsiya). The central composition of the deep operation was the shock army, each acting either in cooperation with each other or independently as part of a strategic front operation. Several shock armies would be subordinated to a strategic front.

Well-known shock armies include the 2nd Shock Army, which spearheaded several offensives in the Leningrad area, and the 3rd Shock Army, which played a key role in the Battle of Berlin.

A Soviet ad hoc combat group was a mixed-arms unit of about 80 men in assault groups of six to eight men, closely supported by field artillery. These tactical units were able to apply the tactics of house-to-house fighting that the Soviets had been forced to develop and refine at each Festungsstadt (fortress city) they had encountered from Stalingrad to Berlin.[7]

The Yugoslav Partisans also established "shock" units during World War II, commencing in February 1942. These initially formed as company- and battalion-sized units, and later grew into brigades.

In or amongst the German armed forces, large armies such as the Waffen-SS received training with the best gear and weapons, primarily used to hit weak points. The Waffen-SS also served as a heavy unit. Used to smash well-armed and -equipped armies on the Eastern Front, the Waffen-SS lost its efficacy after Kursk (1943), but nevertheless later fought in many theaters and played a role in the Battle of the Bulge (1944–1945).

I would point out that some german divisions were also designated Sturm divisions 78th I think.

After 1943 (particularly during and after the invasion of Italy), specialist British units, such as the Commandos and certain detachments of the Special Air Service were used as shock troops against well dug in or elite German forces. Again, both forces would be used in similar roles after the Allies crossed the Rhine, serving as a vanguard for British forces.

The modern British formation is 16 air assault brigade... So the concept is feasible and is meant to employ extra and possible elite formations to take on tough defenders in effect this requires extra training, buildup and supply with command focus given for operational purposes.

Just Saying....

Well, yes the Sovs did. But as the war went on the Shock Armies generally reverted to nothing more than a fancy titled ordinary army.

[hei1]

ORIGINAL: jubjub

ORIGINAL: hei1

Meanwhile, the Axis has to attack and move with their assault units, burning CPP and preventing CPP build up. A typical turn will only see the Axis player able to rest 1/4 of their assault fronts, while the rest are busy attacking and spending their SMP's. With 1/4 resting, this gives the Axis 120/4 * 50 = 1,500 points per turn.

This leads to the very strange situation: keep an assault army behind(!) the front and assign burned out units to it until filled up. The non-assault unit will advance, until ... you exchange them again. Gamey.
BTW: I support the concept of CPP (among others: limited advance in combat). But its still not perfect...

With what units? Once you have 6 assault HQ’s, almost all your German units are under one anyway..

not in my current HvH game in 1943: 12 army HQs (plus 3 allies) and only 4 assault modes. (Plus: lots of action all over the front). But I'm still experimenting ...

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

I have determined that I "will not" be picking up any more games until the Assault HQ's have been addressed. (both sides) As Loki has said in the first post of this thread and after all my current games in 1941 Assault HQ's is a culprit to the current woes in the game.
...

me too to be honest, its too frustrating. It was sort of fun trying to work out if there was a solution but there isn't.

Some points worth bearing in mind.

a) this game is insanely complicated and tricky, speoific solutions may well cause more problems than they solve. We're still finding wierd bugs with the city fort concept.

b) some concepts were in the game when I started testing what could have been called 'WiTW goes east', including CPP. So they are not going to come out, even if the rules around gain/loss can be tweaked.

c) I played a test game about 2 years back, it was one of the few HtH games to get into mid-42 (ended with a patch that invalidated older saves), and it roughly worked out as you'd expect. Point is my opponent was on his first HtH as the Soviets and me as the Axis (very early testing had to end before the winter). The only really major rule system that has been added since then was the assault front concept but equally the logistics system has had a lot of issues knocked out of it

d) its not the logistics, if anything if you know what you are doing that is too permissive, you can and should have 35+MP in your mobile units and 12+ in the infantry. That combination, if the front unlocks, is potentially deadly for the Soviets - so bear that in mind. The game has the potential to swing the other way with Axis players looking up the possibility of a winter in the Urals.

e) Assault fronts came in to model the Soviet late war capacity (think of the 1m+ Fronts in 1945) but also the German ability to regenerate, cobble together and operate when they really should have run out of steam.

In 1941, without assault fronts, the Soviets have the following problems:

i) too many units under poor commanders;
ii) too many armies reporting to either overloaded fronts or odd locations - so basically relying on army commander-Stavka for their command chain;
iii) Low CPP as its hard to regenerate when retreating, even if you avoid too much fighting;
iv) high CPP allows the Soviets to gain higher MP as it sidesteps the dire admin scores (as well as the issue in ii);
v) obv one, high CPP = high attack capacity.

With 2 assault fronts, that lot disappear into the ether, and we get the game we are seeing. It would take real nerve to pull a good leader and decent formations out of the line to regain CPP, commit it to maybe one or two attacks and then have to pull it out for another 3 weeks.

Going back to another point made. Of course the Soviets retain an incentive to attack. A failed but over 1-1 will strip out CPP and MP off the defender, you end up modelling the frustration that the Yelna battles inflicted on AGC post-Smolensk. Not entire Pzr divisions routed.

So, on the principle of keep it simple. I don't think its sensible to get into subtle changes or stuff that might set off other problems. But I won't play HtH (either side) with Assault Fronts for the Soviets before Dec 41 (and then only 1). If this still leaves real problems then its time to get subtle - but remember the programming base for the game is limited.

edit - now this doesn't need a patch to resolve, just player agreement that both sides would enjoy something a little bit more historical than re-enacting the Soviet 1935 defensive plan.

[Sammy5IsAlive]

My idea would be to change the Assault bonus from CPP regain being doubled to CPP loss being halved. That would at least solve the issue of Soviets using assault fronts 'defensively' as we are currently seeing. It would also change tempos of the Axis offensives - at the moment it feels to me that you only get maybe 3 turns of contested attack before you have to stop to rest for a turn. I would suggest that an 'offensive' lasting 6 turns followed by a longer rest would be more difficult for the Soviets to deal with?

I agree with what others have said re. command limits also and especially what Tyrone has said about how at the moment the game feels like it is missing some of the feeling of 'jeopardy' that #1 had from a command perspective - an issue that is exacerbated by the free OOB changes.

[AlbertN]

In fact I'd add Admin Point cost to swap units (both CU and SU) from this Corp / Army to that other one - like in WITE. (And if somethign is in OKH / AG / Stavka costs 0 to be 'claimed' but costs normal to go back there)

And Soviets need to spend Admin Point to disband stuff too.

That ought to slow down some the min-maxing they can do early on of their Soviet Army.

[Wild]

Please don't burden those of us who like to keep our armies organized with AP expenditures. I absolutely hated that about Wite 1. It would basically be a game breaker for me.

[AlbertN]

At the moment it's like "Move HQ with Good leader of 50ish hexes where needed, instantly reassign your finest divisions there to it." kind of gameplay.

One moves the HQs instead of reassigning leaders (or leave HQs with bad leaders vacant on the spot).

To have an entire Corps HQ (Which I assume is to manage Combat Units) being at 0 divisions and regiments, and all they do is ... commandeer micromanaged RAD regiments or construction units ...
Or have your Army general staff planning and commandeering how to optimize the freight to be stocked in a railyard ... (Agaiin with 0 or almost 0 units assigned)

That to me is a game breaker - but we may just see things differently there, at opposite polar sides.